Suggestion on how to keep the harsh without going too harsh

[Good Gortok]

The trouble is that everything can be defended, and is eagerly defended by whoever does it. In this game you can do just about anything and simply give the trite old explanation that "it's a harsh world, newb." It sometimes gets to the point where someone is blatantly going balls to the walls, recklessly insane because they know they can always tell the jury that it was perfectly IC because their character is from such and such area, or has some sentence pasted into their background story. You can make a character who instantly attacks every single individual they ever meet without an emote and a sizeable portion of the playerbase will agree that this was somehow reasonable given the circumstances.

It's a phenomenon of being ruthlessly aggressive or assertive for the sake of doing it. The internet is a place where the last remnants of human decency are thrown aside because of total anonymity and a complete lack of consequences, and it has finally made its way fully into this game as well, helped along in no small way by the fact that Armageddon is wallowing in utter stagnation. Whether or not it is even true anymore, the Reborn project brought about a sentiment of "nothing really matters now" and had a profound impact on how the game was played by most of its players. As the completion of the project became less and less likely, at least in any kind of tangible future, this change was not reverted as one might have imagined but rather left to linger and spread even further. The game now operates in a sort of void where noone (except possibly for a privileged few) know what, if anything, is really going on or planned for the distant future. Another year could pass without any appreciable progress, and this makes many play as if each character was their last, or at least as if nothing matters. And if nothing matters to them, surely nothing matters to others, and so who truly cares if I roll up an exceptional strength warrior and actively seek out excuses to PK? Or slap together a quickly-branched mage and forcibly take over an area of the game world to the benefit of nothing whatsoever?

Some of this can, in turn, be blamed on the game world's inherent lack of harshness. Zalanthas is a pretty cardboard facade under which exists very little when it isn't put to life by enterprising players. Said players have become increasingly rare and the motivation for the enterprise increasingly hard to find for above-mentioned reasons. When the world itself pretty much leaves you alone, there's not a lot to unite against or build anything on. This leads to a situation where players have to be behind anything and everything, and it all becomes sort of false. There are no longer NPC raiders really anywhere in the game world, a whole race of universally hostile humanoids have been removed, more and more areas of the game world are being rendered effectively unusable by IC events, and so on. What's left is a game where most anything that can happen has to be orchestrated fully by players, and wholly for the sake of doing it. This sounds lovely on paper, but at the end of the day it becomes hard to find a real reason to do it. Why hire the Byn to protect you on your trip north when you know there's no real risk of bodily harm? Or there might be, but in the form of mindless holes in the ground that provide nothing but decidedly unentertaining frustration, replacing the at least somewhat dynamic threat of NPC raiders, halfling scouts, Blackmoon PCs, or any other actual threat that has been removed from the game one by one.

Look at what has been taken away from the game over the last handful of years, either entirely or as the consequence of some other event. When were experienced players ever truly worried when travelling? When has the Guild last had a meaningful impact on Allanak politics? When has Allanak last had meaningful politics? When did the playerbase as a whole stop caring about magickers, or start caring only about the annoyingly high numbers and increased assertiveness of them? When did anything happen in Luir's Outpost outside of the annual, painfully predictable and unchanging Luirsfest? Wasn't there actual art in Tuluk once? When did players last create a clan from scratch? When was one of the two primary clans for new players removed from the game, forcing them all into the Byn at the expense of that clan's composition and quality, and at the cost of teaching almost all new players that the game could be played with little more than 'kill scrab' in their vocabulary?

The game has slowly but surely turned into atrophy, apathy and stagnation. Too many players don't care anymore. Too few players are proactive, or stop to wonder if their roleplay actually makes sense. The surface of the game has been polished and made prettier, and the code has been patched up in places while the actual fabric becomes increasingly brittle. Most of this, I suspect, is rooted in the fact that there is no visible future to give it all meaning and incentive. This is why so many players frankly don't give a shit anymore, and the game reflects that change.

[jhunter]

My views on this are somewhat... Flexible. There is IG Harsh and then there is OOC harsh. There isn't a limit, for me, on how harsh it can become IG - The harsher, the better. But with OOC harsh, I would view things that would be out-right ridiculous, like basically sentencing a player to death for some very small ICly inconsequential action. To me, the worst that can happen that I would consider harsh is to have your pc killed and/or maimed to the point of being unplayable. Otherwise - bring on the hardship.

This is what I don't get. If it wasn't overthetop, then it wouldn't be harsh, it would be considered fair punishment.

[Barzalene]

Many things

Happily, this has not been my experience. (I hate to sound like pollyanna, but this is what I'm seeing) I log in and I find people who have agendas. They love, they hate. They scheme. The run afoul of each other. They find strange and unexpected alliances. They fully inhabit and fill out the skins of their pcs. They are no more or less interesting than they were eight years ago. Some aspects of the world have changed. Some players have moved on. Some new players have moved in. I believe that you are seeing the things you complain of. I'm happy to say that I am not.

[jhunter]

Yeah, pretty much the same for me too. I don't really see any glaring problems or people acting as if they "don't care".

[Lizzie]

I see a lot of what Good Gortok is talking about. I think he stretches things a bit for emphasis but I definitely can relate to his perspective on a lot of it.

[Delstro]

Good Gortok brings up another good point. On the internet, whatever you feel, youassume that the other person feels the same way.

When I feel like I am being abused, I feel others are abusing me.

I had a spell where I figured noone cared about anything. It took me a while, but I also kept track of when I felt that way. I often felt that way when I could care less about what was going on around me. When I actively fought that feeling and started to care, I realized that everyone around me had more engaging characters. This could have been them all being forced to come alive by me, or tht they were that way all along. I took the optomisitic route.

You should also!

[Blackisback]

I don't know the situation that brought about this discussion, but I will say that killing another player should, for the most part, be a last-resort kind of thing. From Templars to 'Rinthis, Elves to sponsored roles. If you are actively going out of your way to kill other players, or if you are using your IC powers/rank as some kind of excuse to kill, you add nothing to the game. Why kill when you can exile, or maim, or do something INTERESTING? Sometimes you can justify killing someone. Obviously if you're out in the wilderness and someone rides up on you with an axe and tries to kill you, defend yourself. But when other options are available, try something different for a change.

I'm not trying to tell anyone how to play, but from a players-to-players point of view, killing each other is fruitless when there are so many other options available.

[Mazy]

I don't know the situation that brought about this discussion, but I will say that killing another player should, for the most part, be a last-resort kind of thing. From Templars to 'Rinthis, Elves to sponsored roles. If you are actively going out of your way to kill other players, or if you are using your IC powers/rank as some kind of excuse to kill, you add nothing to the game. Why kill when you can exile, or maim, or do something INTERESTING? Sometimes you can justify killing someone. Obviously if you're out in the wilderness and someone rides up on you with an axe and tries to kill you, defend yourself. But when other options are available, try something different for a change.

I'm not trying to tell anyone how to play, but from a players-to-players point of view, killing each other is fruitless when there are so many other options available.

No. This mud is harsh, and at times, it will leave a bad taste in your mouth. Killing another character should always be an IC thing and at all not a last resort. Otherwise, Red Fangs and assassins would never have any fun. (Damn you red fang raiders..)

[X-D]

but I will say that killing another player should, for the most part, be a last-resort kind of thing. From Templars to 'Rinthis, Elves to sponsored roles. If you are actively going out of your way to kill other players,

Well, as much as I'd like to kill some players, it is against the law in the USA.

Now, as for players charecters, shrug, my PC will kill when it is IC. I give no thought at all to something more "interesting" Because that is not IC.

As a templar, sure, it is. but not for any commoner. The fact is, making an enemy then letting them live is stupid. If you have an enemy and you have a chance to kill them, you should do so. It is not the movies, leaving them live to become stronger and maybe kill your PC just because you have some OOC consideration is silly.

I do, for the most part try to give a reasonably interesting death...assuming it is face to face.

[Mazy]

In the end, it's still only a game when the smoke clears and the mantis head appears.

I try not to take it too seriously or too personal, but sometimes I end up with a funny feeling in my gut anyways. But if you think a death was unjust, or the character had no motivation to kill you, the only thing I can is suggest filing a complaint.

[Blackisback]

I don't know the situation that brought about this discussion, but I will say that killing another player should, for the most part, be a last-resort kind of thing. From Templars to 'Rinthis, Elves to sponsored roles. If you are actively going out of your way to kill other players, or if you are using your IC powers/rank as some kind of excuse to kill, you add nothing to the game. Why kill when you can exile, or maim, or do something INTERESTING? Sometimes you can justify killing someone. Obviously if you're out in the wilderness and someone rides up on you with an axe and tries to kill you, defend yourself. But when other options are available, try something different for a change.

I'm not trying to tell anyone how to play, but from a players-to-players point of view, killing each other is fruitless when there are so many other options available.

No. This mud is harsh, and at times, it will leave a bad taste in your mouth. Killing another character should always be an IC thing and at all not a last resort. Otherwise, Red Fangs and assassins would never have any fun. (Damn you red fang raiders..)

This MUD -is- harsh. However, it is also a game with a community. I don't expect you to play the same way I do, but if I don't have to kill another character, I won't. Out of consideration for the player, and because, in the end, it makes the game more interesting. If you can't find a way around killing someone, then by all means, end them. If you have the option to let them live but choose not to, then you probably aren't as good of a player as you think you are.

[Gobbleneck]

Letting an enemy live may be stupid, but not everyone and their mom should have that mindset.
It can be considered OOC to let a player live with a maiming or less as a 'lesson'; just like it can be considered OOC to kill off all your enemies so they don't come back for revenge against your character.

And there's the fact that not everyone is Fang's enemies.  Just because Amos doesn't give Fang his pack does not mean Amos is Fang's enemy.
If Fang thinks that, then he's playing like a paranoid sociopath.

[Malifaxis]

Letting an enemy live may be stupid, but not everyone and their mom should have that mindset.
It can be considered OOC to let a player live with a maiming or less as a 'lesson'; just like it can be considered OOC to kill off all your enemies so they don't come back for revenge against your character.

And there's the fact that not everyone is Fang's enemies.  Just because Amos doesn't give Fang his pack does not mean Amos is Fang's enemy.
If Fang thinks that, then he's playing like a paranoid sociopath.

Or he's playing his character right.

[Gobbleneck]

But if you think a death was unjust, or the character had no motivation to kill you, the only thing I can is suggest filing a complaint.

You don't know a character's motivations; they could be anything.  They don't need to be inclined to RP out their motivations just to show the player their kill is just.

Filing complaints should never be used against that sort of thing, imo.

[Gobbleneck]

Letting an enemy live may be stupid, but not everyone and their mom should have that mindset.
It can be considered OOC to let a player live with a maiming or less as a 'lesson'; just like it can be considered OOC to kill off all your enemies so they don't come back for revenge against your character.

And there's the fact that not everyone is Fang's enemies.  Just because Amos doesn't give Fang his pack does not mean Amos is Fang's enemy.
If Fang thinks that, then he's playing like a paranoid sociopath.

Or he's playing his character right.

Maybe.

[Dar]

I have read Good Gortok's last post and had to take a moment to shrug off the wave of apathy and depression that washed over me.

Otherwise, no. As someone who observes quiet a bit, I can say the game is still vibrant. Filled with people playing their roles, having their goals, their flaws, their ambitious, their victories, defeats, sorrows, and happiness. The huge grand scale plots happen from time to time, but they're like 10% of the actual interest of the game, if that. And even on those there are plenty, if you considered what has so far happened in the past year.

Granted, not everything is full as it used to be. Simply due to constraints of player base. If the leadership of some clan/house is lacking, then it quiets down in that area of the world. In some other area, the leadership is booming, and events happen so fast, it's hard to track and orient. e

[Ampere]

While my characters are far from anything villainous, I do tend to model their mode of murder after the archetype. Not in the "dangling-from-a-burning-rope-above-a-pit-of-mutated-scorpions" sense, but more in the "this-is-how-and-why-I'm-going-to-kill-you" sense. Not only does it provide closure to the victim, but it gives my murderer peace of mind.

[brytta.leofa]

The fact is, making an enemy then letting them live is stupid.

However, most of us tend to do this in real life.  Just saying.

[Delstro]

Stupid, but a lot more involving.

[Synthesis]

Lately, I've been passing on a lot of kills.

They all end up dying anyway.

[Dan]

The fact is, making an enemy then letting them live is stupid.

However, most of us tend to do this in real life.  Just saying.

Not in Baghdad or Afghanistan. 

We aren't typical Zalanthans either.

[a strange shadow]

Lately, I've been passing on a lot of kills.

They all end up dying anyway.

This is what I used to do with pretty much all of my long-lived characters.

The enemies that survived ended up being more tenacious and interesting (and therefore more fun) anyway.

[jriley]

Not in Baghdad or Afghanistan. 

We aren't typical Zalanthans either.

No, we aren't.  But even the conflict regions of the asia minor have their share of tax-paying, soft-spoken people who keep their heads down and avoid trouble. 

And what of the criminals?  What of the outlaws?  What of the insurgents?  Many of them are at the end of the day satisfied to chop off a thief's hand, or to rape somebodies wife, or to appeal for a multi-thousand dinar settlement from a tribal council according to sharia.

Even the baddest of the worst there don't kill everybody that they dislike.  A buddy of mine just got back from a year in Baghdhad*, and had to say of the "insurgency" that a lot of the violence is best attributed to "market forces" (meaning organized) crime and so people get killed when there is a business case for them getting killed, not because two people dislike each other. 

But before my post gets too bogged down in geopolitics or counter-insurgency theory (COIN), I'd like to point out that some of us are dickheads in game, and some of us are dickheads out of game.  When you're a dickhead to other characters, you're contributing to the harsh atmosphere of the game.  When you're a dickhead to other PLAYERS, you're just plain being a dickhead.  At the least, you can expect people to draw this to your attention.  No one is going to laud your efforts if the result is in multiple people having less fun in the game.

I'll try to illustrate some of this with another post (below).


*anybody who has more direct experience living or working in a conflict zone is welcome to comment on this.

[Dan]

Not in Baghdad or Afghanistan. 

We aren't typical Zalanthans either.

No, we aren't.  But even the conflict regions of the asia minor have their share of tax-paying, soft-spoken people who keep their heads down and avoid trouble. 

And what of the criminals?  What of the outlaws?  What of the insurgents?  Many of them are at the end of the day satisfied to chop off a thief's hand, or to rape somebodies wife, or to appeal for a multi-thousand dinar settlement from a tribal council according to sharia.

Even the baddest of the worst there don't kill everybody that they dislike.  A buddy of mine just got back from a year in Baghdhad*, and had to say of the "insurgency" that a lot of the violence is best attributed to "market forces" (meaning organized) crime and so people get killed when there is a business case for them getting killed, not because two people dislike each other. 

But before my post gets too bogged down in geopolitics or counter-insurgency theory (COIN), I'd like to point out that some of us are dickheads in game, and some of us are dickheads out of game.  When you're a dickhead to other characters, you're contributing to the harsh atmosphere of the game.  When you're a dickhead to other PLAYERS, you're just plain being a dickhead.  At the least, you can expect people to draw this to your attention.  No one is going to laud your efforts if the result is in multiple people having less fun in the game.

I'll try to illustrate some of this with another post (below).


*anybody who has more direct experience living or working in a conflict zone is welcome to comment on this.

I did just get back not too long ago, but will refrain from posting my opinion on the subject. Good input though.

As an aside, and a general question to everyone. Do people feel the level of politically motivated 'harshness' to be too high?

[Barzalene]

Honestly, it depends on which day you ask me.
Most days no. I think we're good.

I would like to see more politics, but I think I'm in the wrong place for that.